Question 5 (opens 5 Mar.)

Dear all,

Now is the time to debate the one but last question put forward for discussion. It addresses Stakeholder roles:

What are the roles of ICT and agricultural stakeholders in e-agriculture strategy formulation, implementation and evaluation? How can we ensure the full participation of farmers and other non-governmental stakeholders ? What are the role(s) of the Ministry in charge of ICT and the one in charge of Agriculture? What role(s) for international stakeholders?

So please consider carefully ways to ensure the effective and full participation of the following stakeholders:
1) FARMERS
2) OTHER NON-GOVERNMENTAL structures

And outline the role of the following stakeholders:
3) GOVERNMENT ICT Department
4) GOVERNMENT AGRICULTURE  Department
5) INTERNATIONAL structures/agencies

For each one of the above stakeholders, please do so keeping in mind all three phases an e-strategy would go through:
1) FORMULATION
2) IMPLEMENTATION
3) EVALUATION

Best regards,

Mawaki

Hi All,

1) Formulation: I think with the presence of National ICT Policies in most countries now, the "Government Agriculture Departments" (using the terms directly from the question) should take the lead in the formualtion of national e-Agriculture Strategies using a multi-stakeholder approach. In other words, extensive consultation with stakeholders such as farmers and farmer associations, traders, private sector value added service providers, mobile network operators, ministry in charge of ICTs, etc. in the process will define the usefulness of the final product. Farmers can share their challenges related to access to information, which the ministries of Agriculture and ICTs can take into consideration in the formulation process. The private sector's contribution at this stage could be in the form of financial support in bringing stakeholders together, etc. The international organizations may help with the technical know-how and capacity building for the government actors in the policy formulation. And NGOs may help in advocay and awareness creation for the need of such policy. I like the strong collaboration between the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Ministry of Post & Information Technology and Communication of Ivory Coast in this process but believe the leadership of the Agricultural Ministry is important.   

2) Implementation: If the government takes the lead in formulating the policy, why not allow the private sector to take the lead in implementation. Implementation of the strategy will involve investments - infrastructure and applications. So using the same multi-stakeholder approach, the private sector can work with the government ministries, international actors, farmers, NGOs, and others to ensure the implementation of the strategy. Government departments such as agriculture which is in direct contact with the users (farmers and traders), should be closely involved in the implementation to ensure universal access and universal service. Definitely, financial support from the international actors for the implementation will be important here. Feedback from farmers in the implementation process can also lead to success. 

3) Monitoring & Evaluation: For the entire process to be neutral, I see the leadership role of international actors in the monitoring and evaluation process. Using experiences from other sectors and across countries, international organizations involved in the process can ensure the goals and targets set up in the strategy are being met during the implementation, and to ensure that the language of all stakeholders in the strategy are adhered to. Again, this should be a multi-stakeholder approach utilizing experiences, expertise and feedback from all the actors including farmers about how these strategies are being implemented. International organizations should solicit feedback and responses from users, implementers, and formulators to see if the needs of all actors are being met.

Let me hear what others are thinking!

Ben

This post sounds more meaningful.
The details mentioned here may be useful for the participants.

Ben,
I am in support of most of the arguments you put forward in your post. The point that concerns me is that low level of trust that you seem to have in your local stakeholders ability to monitor and evaluate the process. Indeed this may be as a result of your experiences.

Notice that the responsibility matrix model proposed involve multiple stakeholders but excludes government directly. the management of any initiatives seems to work much better when government is not directly involved as their role as regulator and enabler would conflicting.

One solution that has worked well is when the primary stakeholders and major benefactors are integral in the monitoring and evaluation. Interventions are more proactive as deterioration in operations may result in loss of intended benefits.

Another is to establish an independent autonomous body that monitors and evaluates initiatives such as e-agriculture. In this regard each stakeholder can have representational presence and decision making powers. This has been successful in Jamaica through commissions such as that responsible for Electoral matters.

Last Monday, 4 March, I was with a top executive of a huge Philippine company that sells feeds (from cassava) to agribusinessmen. He spends thousands of hours each year talking to farmers, and he told me that the secret of his effectiveness in getting them to adopt new technologies is rather simple: get the farmers involved right from the start and learning to think like them by asking himself the question "What's in it for me as a farmer?" In other words, communicate properly the message of how they can earn more and you have them. But it doesn't end there. Selling new technologies needs trust, and since the results take some time, he told me that the best way to gain their trust is to spend time with them. Farmers are used to salesmen selling them new things and disappearing when the "supposed" results are due. The reason this executive is so successful is that he knows his technology, if properly implemented, will work. He knows it will work if the farmers make it work (by following the procedures). And he knows they will make it work if they see his confidence and he spends time visiting them, asking them about their problems, suggesting solutions, etc.

Farming is a time-intensive operation, but once you invest time and you win over their trust, you're on the way to sustainable success. Of course, sometimes things don't work out as it did recently (because we had several strong typhoons that caused terrible damage), so he had to go out to the farms again to encourage the farmers not to give up.

While him as private sector orchestrates all these, he depends on the farmers themselves, NGOs, government agencies, and agricultural schools to provide support. The key is the farmer, get into their minds, address their concerns, and chances of success are great. This is what our Dept of Agriculture did when they drew up their e-Agri strategy. But planning is one thing, implementation is another. 

This is a great point to consider.
Thanks to the contributor.

Participants,
I suppose this is where the "rubber hits the road", who is responsible for what and who will do what. Ben, your contribution to this question is noted, appreciated and agreed with in most areas. I am approaching the role of stakeholder from a service management framework perspective.

According to the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITILv3), a service has a lifecycle of five (5) phases. Service Strategy, Service Design, Service Transition, Service Operation and Continual Service Improvement. Microsoft Operations Framework (MOF 4.0) outlines a service lifecycle to include; Plan, Deliver and Operate phases and a Manage layer. I believe we can fit the e-agriculture strategies into any of these two frameworks to help determine the role of each stakeholder.

Accepted pronouncements:
- government makes policies, regulates and act as an enabler;
- government does not operate successful businesses;
- Economic growth is driven by the private sector;
- increasing wealth requires investment in research and technology;
- the broader the level of participation, the greater the possibility of success.

If all stakeholders were to ask the question raised by Emligot, "What is in it for me?" then the process of role definition even becomes more clear. Combining this with objectives such as economic/social development, viability of the agriculture industry and empowerment of stakeholders also brings into sharp focus the critical role of stakeholders in the overall process.

Here is my view of the stakeholders rolein a responsibility matrix below.

Stakeholder                                   e-agriculture strategies phases
                                 Formulation              Implementation                          Evaluation
Farmer                           Yes                               Yes                                         Yes         
NGOs                              Yes                              Yes                                         Yes
Government ICT Dept     Yes                              Yes                                          No
Government Agri. Dept   Yes                              Yes                                          No
International agencies    Yes                               No                                          Yes

As usual let me hear your perpectives as we continue in this knowledge sharing experience.

I appreciate the responsibility matrix.
This is a great contribution for finalizing recommendations.

It does appear obvious to me that the government wouldn't have any role to play at evaluation phase, neither in the ICT nor (more surprinsingly) in the agriculture department. Could you please elaborate on that? Thanks

Mawaki,
My view is based on separation of duties to eliminate conflict of interest and undue influence. The regulator should not be evaluating themselves. For transparency, an independent body or bodies should evaluate the developer and implementor. Through commissions or an autonomous established organization government would have representation  but not directly or through an organization with oversight responsibility such as the ICT department.